Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 57 results found
Are naturalistic assumptions necessary for doing science? Stephen Meyer argues that, no, it was a Christian worldview that gave rise to modern science.
Alan responds to an argument against God’s existence.
Some contemporary scientists have argued that something can come from nothing, but it turns out they’re equivocating on the word “nothing.”
Tim responds to the idea that time came into existence with the Big Bang and whether or not it will continue forever.
Yes, the fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time, right? Here's why this objection to the fine-tuning argument doesn't work.
William Lane Craig describes five rational beliefs that can’t be scientifically proven.
Michael Egnor has a fascinating post on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s evidence-based conversion from materialism to dualism: Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.
A common question that comes up after I give my talk titled Why I Am Not an Evolutionist is, “If there are so many good scientific arguments against evolution, why is it so widely believed?” I recently came across an article by Dr. William Lane Craig where he responds to this exact question. In his brilliant response he makes two key observations, which I will highlight here.
Atheist John Gray argues in the Guardian that atheists who think science alone can support their preferred system of morality are fooling themselves:
Last week, Biola hosted a panel discussion between William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and John Lennox (moderated by Hugh Hewitt) on the topic of “God, Science, and the Big Questions.”